Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Gautam Roy vs Eastern Railway on 17 June, 2025
1 oa. 350/00970/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
No. O.A. 350/00970/2017 Heard on: 24.04.2025
Date of Order: 17.06.2025
Present: Hon'ble Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
1. Goutam Roy,
Son of Late Bimalendu Roy,
Residing at 154, Kora Green Park,
P.O. Korachandigar,
P.S. Madhyamgram,
District North 24-Parganas,
Kolkata - 700 130.
2. Mr. Rabi Sankar,
Son of Dhaneswar Prosad,
Residing at 408/P,Dakshindary Rly. Qrs.
Kolkata -700037.
3. Dilip Kumar Dey,
Son of Late Paresh Chandra Dey,
Residing at Vill Ramchandrapur,
P.O. Sodepur,
District 24-Parganas (N),
Cacutta-700110.
All are working Sealdah Division.
.........Applicants
-Versus-
1. Union of India,
through the General Manager,
Eastern Railway,
Having his office at 4, Fairle Place,
Kolkata -700001.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Eastern Railway,
Having his office at 4, Fairle Place,
Kolkata -700001.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Eastern Railway,
Sealdah Division,
Having his office at Sealdah,
Kolkata-700014.
Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65=
Shantanu
133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone=
495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6
58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=
1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea
Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 oa. 350/00970/2017
4. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS)
Eastern Railway, Sealdah,
Having his office at Sealdah,
Kolkata -700014.
............Respondents
For the Applicants : Mr. A. Ali Sardar, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Paul, Counsel
ORDER
Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:
The applicants have filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-
"a) Leave may kindly be given to move this application jointly in common cause of action under Section 4(5) (a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1985;
b) Direction upon the respondents to forthwith take appropriate steps to pay salaries and emoluments to the applicants at par with the Juniors promoted in violation to the extant provisions of Equal Pay for Equal Work and Railway Services (Revision of pay) Rules 2008. Pay all salaries and benefits from the actual date of promotion as Senior Technicians.
c) Interim order and/or further order as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.."
2. The admitted facts that arise from the pleadings are as under:-
The applicants were initially recruited as Khalasi/Khalasi Helper. Upon completion of requisite service and possessing educational qualification as per Apprentices Act, they became eligible to apply for the post of Artisan Grade - III against 25% quota in various departments. It is the contention of the applicants that 25% of vacancies in the category of Skilled Artisan Gr. III in Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 oa. 350/00970/2017 various departments were to be filled up by selection from course completed Act Apprentices ITI passed candidates and matriculates from the open market as well as serving employees, who are course completed Act Apprentices or ITI qualified, allowing age relaxation as applicable to serving employees. The remaining 50% of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion of staff from the lower grade as per prescribed procedure. The quota reservation of 25% + 25% + 50% = 100% vacancies in the category of Skilled Artisans Grade III is prescribed in Paragraph 159 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. I (Revised Edition 1989). The applicants are aggrieved since they have been subjected to hostile discrimination in their service career, wherein reserve quota of 25% was filled up by promoting their Junior ITI passed candidates in the promotional posts. It is submitted that the selection procedure for filling up the promotional posts of two categories of employees of the Non-Skilled cadre has been laid down in the Circulars issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Sealdah dated 17.04.1993 and 10.06.1980. The applicants have alleged that had the respondent authorities considered both the circular in their case, they ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Artisan Grade III Technician but they have been deprived since their juniors ITI passed candidates have been promoted against 25% quota from the serving semi-skilled and unskilled staff with educational qualification as laid down in the Apprentices Act. They have further submitted that, being aggrieved, similarly situated employees had filed O.A. No. 1323 of 1999 before this Tribunal Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4 oa. 350/00970/2017 wherein vide Order dated 13.08.2001, the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the applicants for refixation of their seniority.
In compliance to such order dated 13.08.2001, the respondent authorities vide Order dated 13.11.2001 considered their claim and rejected the claim for refixing their seniority. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants of the O.A. preferred another application being O.A. No. 122 of 2002 before this Tribunal, which was rejected. This Order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT No. 697 of 2007 and vide Order dated 14.05.2008, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
"......The respondent authority cannot take advantage of their own wrong. There is no denial of the fact that some of the juniors belonging to different category were given promotion in 1986 encroaching the quota fixed for the applicants, group of claimants. We, therefore, think that this matter has to be reconsidered.
In the circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned Tribunal so also the order of the Respondent No. 5 both these orders are set aside. We direct the respondent No. 5 to fix the seniority on promotion from the date the candidates junior to them were promoted to the post. However, this seniority is to be given notionally, financial benefit should be given."
However, the respondents did not comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter a Contempt Petition was filed, wherein vide Order dated 17.05.2010, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an order directing, that it would be open for the petitioner, if otherwise aggrieved, to approach the appropriate forum. Subsequently, O.A. No. 275 of 2010 was filed before this Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 oa. 350/00970/2017 Tribunal and vide Order dated 23.07.2012, this Tribunal passed the following direction:-
"6. The applicants who are appointed as Unapproved Khalasi on various dates from 1973 to 1984 and having a qualification of matriculation or equivalent thereto. The claim that they are eligible to sit for the departmental examination or to apply for the post of Skilled Artisan Grade III. The applicants were holding the post of Khalasi/Khalasi Helper who are entitled to the post of Technician (Grade III) in the reserved 25% of the vacancies under Recruitment Rules. This fact has not considered by the respondents and the juniors from other categories were given promotion. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the matter is no longer res-Integra. The Hon'ble High Court has already passed an order on similar issue in W.P.CT. No. 697/07. Since the applicants has already submitted their representation vide letter dated 07.12.2009 which still remain undisposed of by the respondents and even in the reply it has not been pointed out that any decision was taken by respondents on the representation submitted by the applicant.
7. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the respondents is directed to dispose of the matter of the applicant and the representation of the applicant dated 07.12.2009 within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. If the applicants are similarly situated as per the orders passed in W.P.C.T. No. 697/07, this similar benefit be extended to them."
With the above observation the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs."
Pursuant to such direction, the applicants of that O.A. were promoted to the post of Senior Technician Grade III on 01.11.2013. The applicants contend that they were fixed in a lower pay scale compared to their juniors in the same post, who were promoted violating the extant rules. The applicants claim that despite clear and unambiguous Rules regarding stepping up of pay on promotion, with regard to the principles of equal pay for equal work the applicants are being deprived of the benefits compared to their respective juniors. They claim that although promotion to higher post along with seniority were given to the applicant but the pay on the promotional post was denied to them in utter violation of the extant rules.
Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 oa. 350/00970/2017 The applicants have provided a comparative chart showing how persons junior to them are drawing higher pay than them. For the sake of convenience, the chart is reproduced below:-
Sl. No. Name of the applicants 01.11.2013 01.07.2015 vis-à-vis their juniors
1. Applicant No. 1 Rs. 15,130/- Rs. 16,051/-
Shri Goutam Roy Rs. 16,610/- Rs. 18,620/- Junior Shri Sambhunath
2. Applicant No. 2 Rs. 15,130/- Rs. 16,051/-
Shri Rabi Sarkar Rs. 17,070/- Rs. 18,652/- Junior Shri Ashim Kumar
3. Applicant No. 3 Rs. 15,350/- Rs. 16,290/-
Shri Dilip Kr. Dey Rs. 17,540/- Rs. 18,620/- Junior Shri B.K. Sanyal It is further submitted that some of the applicants of O.A. No. 275 of 2010 had preferred O.A. No. 98 of 2013 before this Tribunal (the present applicants were not party to the proceedings before this Tribunal) and vide Order dated 12.03.2015, this Tribunal directed the respondents to extend them similar benefits, if they were similarly situated as per the petitioners in WPCT No. 697/2007. Pursuant to said Order, the respondents had granted benefits of stepping up of pay to the applicants of that O.A. but did not grant such benefits to the instant applicants. Hence, the applicants claim that they have been illegally deprived of their legitimate claim of stepping up of pay in utter violation of Rule 7 of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 as also Order dated 12.03.2015.
3. The respondents have filed written statement as well as notes of arguments, wherein they have categorically mentioned that Shri Sambhu Nath Bhattacharya with whom Shri Goutam Roy had sought equal pay, he was one of the applicants in O.A. No. 122 of Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 oa. 350/00970/2017 2002 along with Sadhan Kumar Dutta & ors. and challenged the promotion given to some persons from the ITI quota and completing the course of Apprentice in Tech. III (Skilled Artisan Gr. III) before this Tribunal, which was dismissed on 25.05.2007 and the said Order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT No. 697 of 2007, wherein the Hon'ble High Court had directed to fix the seniority on promotion from the date their juniors were promoted to the posts. The respondents have categorically stated that Shri Goutam Roy was provided all the benefits and was promoted to the post of Tech - I on and from 23.12.2013 with the pay of Rs.
13,260/- and thereafter on 01.07.2015 his pay reached Rs. 15130/-. The respondents have contended that Shri Sambhu Nath Bhattacharya along with others being aggrieved with the order of dismissal passed by this Tribunal had preferred WPCT No. 697 of 2007 and his pay was accordingly fixed as Rs. 16,610/- on 30.05.2013 and Rs. 18,620/- as on 01.07.2015. Identically, Shri Rabi Shankar being at Srl. No. 70 was appointed as Khalasi on 15.02.1984 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Sr. Khalasi on 07.06.1988 and thereafter in the post of Tech. - III (PRQ Quota) on 03.10.2000 and Tech-II on 01.02.2010 but promoted to the post of Tech-I on 23.12.2013. However, the petitioners of WPCT No. 697 of 2007 were at Srl. No. 27 to 42 vide Seniority List dated 28.03.2013, wherein the name of Shri Rabi Shankar did not find place. However, Shri Rabi Shankar had claimed parity of pay with Shri Ashim Kumar, who was a direct recruit in the year 06.04.1987 as Tech-III in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- much prior to Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 oa. 350/00970/2017 promotion of Shri Rabi Shankar, who was promoted in the post of Tech - III as on 03.10.2000. The respondents thus have averred that a direct recruit's pay, who has been promoted subsequently cannot be compared with any PRQ quota candidate. Similarly, Shri Dilip Kr. Dey was appointed as Trainee Khalasi on 31.03.1980 and was promoted as Sr. Khalasi on 07.06.1988, thereafter on 03.10.2000 as Tech-III and as Tech. II on 22.11.2006 whereas Shri B.K. Sanyal with whom the applicant No. 3 is claiming parity was promoted as Tech. III on 05.12.1986 in ITI quota initially got promotion out of the same ITI quota and in terms of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment his promotion remained operative and thus he was enjoying higher pay than Shri Dilip Kumar Dey. The respondents would contend that the name of Shri Dilip Kumar Dey did not find place in the seniority lists dated 03.11.2009 and 28.03.2014 published by the respondents. The respondents have added that as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed in WPCT No. 697 of 2007 persons from QSQ quota were given promotion against PRQ quota but there were no vacancies available for PRQ quota at the material point of time and after such promotions were given for implementation of the Hon'ble High Court's Order, this situation arose. They have further stated that persons from QSQ quota are more qualified than the persons who are from PRQ quota and hence the incumbents of the two quotas cannot be equated. They have stated that the petitioners of WPCT No. 697 of 2007 were incorporated in the recasted seniority list dated 28.03.2013 and they came ahead in the seniority list vide Srl. Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 oa. 350/00970/2017 No. 27 to 42. In the speaking Order dated 29.06.2016 the respondents had clearly mentioned that after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT No. 697 of 2007, there was no vacancies available for QSQ, as all the available vacancies for QSQ was given wrongly to PRQ to implement the Hon'ble High Court's Order. The respondents have further stated that as per the provisions of stepping up, benefit of stepping up of pay of seniors with reference to that of juniors can only be given in cases where the promotions of the senior and the junior are on a regular basis.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides and perused materials available on record.
5. It is noted that though as per the applicants they were subjected to hostile discrimination wherein Reserve Quota of 25% was filled up by promoting junior ITI passed candidates in the promotional post, however, there is no such mention about who are those juniors or when they were promoted. If they were promoted earlier, why the applicants did not challenge their promotion at that relevant point of time; since the seniority list published on the basis of the date of promotion had attained finality after a certain period of time. It is also not known to us whether such seniority list was ever challenged at that relevant point of time or not, whereas some similarly situated employees had approached the Tribunal in the year 1999. Even at that point of time, the applicants did not approach this Tribunal.
Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 oa. 350/00970/2017 It is also observed that though the applicants are basically approaching this Tribunal claiming that they were being deprived of promotion under 25% promotion quota, however, ultimately without challenging the same, as observed above, at the relevant point of time, they are asking for stepping up of pay at par with three persons.
In this regard, the respondents have clearly submitted that Shri Sambhunath Bhattacharjee with whom Shri Goutam Roy had sought for equal pay, was one of the applicants in O.A. No. 122/2002 along with others and challenged the promotion given to some persons from ITI quota which was ultimately dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT No. 697/2007 and the Hon'ble High Court had directed to fix the seniority on promotion from the date their juniors were promoted to the post. However, at that point of time also, the applicant No. 1 did not approach this Tribunal or had approached before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, his date of promotion and consequent pay fixation was done appropriately.
Identically, in the case of Shri Rabi Shankar, he cannot claim parity of pay with Shri Ashim Kumar, who was a direct recruit in the year 06.04.1987 as Tech-III in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 during the year 1997 much prior to the promotion of Sri Rabi Shankar, who was promoted on 03.10.2000 in Tech-III and was promoted to the post of Tech-II on 15.01.1997 much prior to the promotion of Sri Rabi Shankar on 01.02.2010 in Tech-II. Hence, pay of Sri Rabi Shankar cannot be compared with the PRQ quota candidate Shri Ashim Kumar.
Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 oa. 350/00970/2017 Similarly, Sri Dilip Kr. Dey was appointed as Trainee Khalasi on 31.03.1980 subsequently promoted as Sr. Khalasi on 07.06.1988 and thereafter as Tech-III on 03.10.2000 and Tech-II on 22.11.2006, his pay cannot be equated with Sri Bijoy Kr. Sanyal as Shri Bijoy Kr. Sanyal was promoted as Tech-III on 05.12.1986 in ITI quota and his promotion remained operative after the order of Hon'ble High Court was given effect to. Hence, Shri B.K. Sanyal got higher pay than Shri Dilip Kumar Dey.
In this regard, it is also observed that even the applicants have not produced any seniority list, which can determine their inter se seniority.
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the applicants have miserably failed to establish that above mentioned three persons i.e. Shri Sambhunath, Shri Ashim Kumar & Shri B.K. Sanyal are junior to them at any point of time. Thus pay parity cannot be claimed against those persons.
6. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) Urmita Datta (Sen)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sp
Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb4143baf81a6 58d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4812359ea Pramanik ee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.18 11:31:28-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0